An excerpt from the blog post written by Bruce Thornton for frontpagemag.com
March 22, 2013
Recently Walter Russell Mead neatly formulated the importance of the issue for the future electoral success of
Republicans: “If the struggle over the future of the GOP is seen by
independents to be a battle between neocons and isolationists, the party
will lose national support no matter which faction wins. Those are hard
truths, but they are real: the country doesn’t want more of either
George W. Bush or Ron Paul on foreign policy and until Republicans can
develop a new and different vision of the way forward, they are unlikely
to regain the high ground they once enjoyed on this issue.” So what
should be a Republican foreign policy––isolationism, international
idealism, neocon interventionism, or realism?
Isolationism has always been an attractive option for Americans. Enjoying the protection of two oceans, in the 19th
century Thomas Jefferson could preach “entangling alliances with none”
of the world’s nations. John Quincy Adams famously announced that
America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Later,
James Monroe would say, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters
relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport
with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or
seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our
defense.” In 1863 Secretary of State William H. Seward declined to join
France’s protest against Russian intervention in Poland by evoking the
U.S. “policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as
it may seem to other nations,” and “forbearing at all times, and in
every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”
Such a policy was in part weakened by the increasing technological and economic advances of the 19th
century that shrank the world and more closely bound nation to nation,
redefining what a phrase like “seriously menaced” could mean. Our
national interests now faced threats not from invading armies, but from
disorder and wars abroad that disrupted an increasingly globalized trade
and sparked violent competition for global resources and markets. Now
internationalist idealism began to gain traction, the notion that a
“federation of free states,” as Kant imagined in 1795, could “for ever
terminate all wars.” International organizations, laws, and treaties
would bind states together based on universal mutual interests like
peace and prosperity, maintaining global order and helping backward
states to progress beyond war and zero-sum competition. Given that some
states would lag behind this evolution, wars would still be necessary to
hasten this development by eliminating despotic illiberal regimes.
However, these would be wars not of conquest or nationalist
aggrandizement, but of spreading the benefits of democracy and
prosperity to the whole world.
Want to read the whole article? Click on the link below.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/where-does-republican-foreign-policy-go-from-here/
Is isolationism becoming more popular in the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment